Show jumping competition

ABSTRACT

A method of conducting a horse jumping competition comprising enrolling a number of participants in the competition, determining whether a number of the participants is a predetermined positive integer exponentiation base, dividing competitors into competitor groups based on the predetermined positive integer exponentiation base, judging each competitor group in a horse jumping contest based on predetermined criteria, determining a winner of each competitor group and eliminating a loser of each competitor group, declaring a tournament winner, in a final round, and advancing the winner of each competitor group to a next round, in a non-final round.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to a show jumping competitionand, more particularly, to a show jumping competition in whichcompetitors engage in elimination duels to advance to the next round.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Several competitive sports involve horse jumping. In particular, showjumping, hunter, and the cross-country phase of the equestriandiscipline of eventing all involve horse jumping.

Show jumping, also known as stadium jumping, open jumping or jumpers, isa type of English riding equestrian event. Other English riding eventsinclude dressage, eventing, hunters and equitation. Show jumpingincludes various obstacles that must be navigated by the rider andhorse.

Hunter is a branch of competitive horseback riding that is judged basedon the horse's performance, soundness, conformation, suitability ormanners. Horses may also be judged on fluid movement and correct jumpingstyle.

The cross-country phase of the equestrian discipline of eventing is anendurance test proving the speed, endurance and jumping ability of ahorse.

Presently, however, the above equestrian events are not particularlyattractive to lay members of the public (i.e., a person not involved inthe equestrian world) or to possible sponsors and the media at large.

Current horse jumping competition events are rather uninteresting.Specifically, there are no eliminations during the competition sospectators are somewhat disinterested throughout the competition.Indeed, it is often hard for a layperson to tell whether a horse isnavigating the course well.

Moreover, currently, a thorough understanding of the sport is requiredto enjoy it.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In view of the foregoing, it is an object of the present invention to toprovide a competition that is more interesting both to long-time horsejumping enthusiasts as well as laypeople. One of the ways the presentinvention makes horse jumping more interesting is by providing forregular eliminations of competitors.

To achieve the foregoing and other objects, an embodiment of the presentinvention entails a method of conducting a horse jumping competitioncomprising the steps of enrolling a number of participants in thecompetition, determining whether a number of the participants is apredetermined positive integer exponentiation base, dividing competitorsinto competitor groups based on the predetermined positive integerexponentiation base, judging each competitor group in a horse jumpingcontest based on predetermined criteria, determining a winner of eachcompetitor group and eliminating a loser of each competitor group,declaring a tournament winner, in a final round, and advancing thewinner of each competitor group to a next round, in a non-final round.

Various other objects, advantages and features of the present inventionwill become readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art fromthe following detailed description of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The following detailed description, given by way of example and notintended to limit the present invention, will best be appreciated inconjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like referencenumerals denote like elements and parts, in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a horse negotiating an uphill bank obstacle;

FIG. 2 illustrates a horse negotiating a corner obstacle; and

FIG. 3 is a schematic flow diagram that shows in general terms theprocess for conducting a horse jumping competition in accordance withthe present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

The present invention brings show jumping into the twenty-first century.As will be described, the present invention is a new process forconducting a horse jumping competition.

Horse jumping is a competition in which the horse, controlled by arider, is required to negotiate (e.g., jump over) various obstacles andis then judged based on various criteria. The judging criteria includes,but is not limited to, horse disobedience, errors on the course, fails,and time faults, Horse disobedience includes a refusal or crossingtracks (i.e., circling) in front of an obstacle.

Judging may also be based on points and time. That is, results are basedon the scores obtained and the time taken to complete the course. Thecompetitor who gets the lowest number of points in the fastest time isthe winner. However, if there is a tie, competitors who have tied onpoints take part in a jump-off on the same obstacle course, applying the“points and time” method.

Each knockdown means a certain number of seconds (for example, 4seconds) is added onto the total time taken. The competitor who has thefastest time once the penalties have been added up is the winner.

The penalty system may also include the following penalties: knockingdown an obstacle—4 faults; knocking down an obstacle in a speed andhandiness contest—4 seconds; first disobedience—4 faults; seconddisobedience—elimination; fall of rider, horse or both—elimination;exceeding allowed time—1 fault for every 4 seconds (or fraction thereof)over.

Errors on course include jumping obstacles in the wrong order, jumpingan obstacle in the wrong direction, not jumping over a particularobstacle, jumping from a standstill.

Other criteria include performance, soundness, conformation, suitabilityor manners, fluid movement, correct jumping style, speed, endurance andjumping ability of a horse.

Obstacles include, but are not limited to: Arrowhead, Bank, Bounce,Brush Fence, Bullfinch, Coffin, Combinations, Corner, Ditch, Drop Fence,Log Fence, Normandy bank, Oxer, Rolltop, Shark's Teeth, Skinny, StoneWall, Sunken Road, Table, Trakehner and Water. Some obstacles may bemore difficult than others.

Referring now to the drawings, FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate several examplesof horses navigating obstacles. In particular, FIG. 1 illustrates ahorse negotiating an uphill bank obstacle.

A bank obstacle requires jumps that are steps up or steps down from onelevel to another. These can be single jumps or built as a staircase ofmultiple banks. Banks may be uphill or downhill. Uphill banks requirelarge amounts of impulsion (although not speed) from the horse. Bothtypes of banks require that a rider be centered over the horse and downbanks require the rider to lean back.

FIG. 3 is a schematic flow diagram that shows in general terms theprocess for conducting a horse jumping competition in accordance withthe present invention. More specifically, FIG. 3 illustrates a methodfor conducting a horse jumping competition, where riders compete againstone another in one-on-one (or one-on-one-on-one, etc.) duels/conteststhat are part in an eliminatory, pyramid-type competitive structure.

When one competitor wins in a particular round, that competitor advancesto the next round, whereas the losing competitor is eliminated. Thus,spectators will find this competition exciting since there is acompetitor advancing or being eliminated on a regular basis throughoutthe tournament. That is, even if spectators fail to understand theintricacies of the sport (e.g., judging criteria and applicationthereof), they can still root for and bet on a particular competitor inevery duel in every round.

Initially, in step 301, a certain number of competitors enroll in thecompetition. In step 303, a determination is made of whether the numberof the participants is a predetermined positive integer exponentiationbase, for example, a power of 2 (i.e., a base 2 exponentiation). Thatis, whether the number of competitors is in the form of 2^(x) where x isa positive integer. For example, 2¹, 2², 2³, 2⁴, and 2⁵, correspondingto 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 competitors, respectively, would be in the aboveform. This is useful because, in light of the duel or one-on-one natureof the tournament, it ensures that each competitor takes part in thesame number of rounds, and that after every round, the number ofparticipants is halved (or divided by 3, etc. depending on the base).Optionally, a qualifying stage may be held first to eliminate somecompetitors.

As mentioned above, an alternative embodiment may have n-competitor“duels,” instead of 2 competitor duels. For example, each duel may be acompetition between 3 competitors, 2 of which would be eliminated afterthe “duel” and 1 would advance to the next round. In this example, thecompetitors would be in the form of 3^(x), instead of 2^(x). Forexample, 3¹, 3², 3³, 3⁴, and 3⁵, corresponding to 3, 9, 27, 81 and 243competitors, respectively, would be in the above form. As mentionedabove, the base (e.g., 2 or 3, etc.) would be a predetermined integer.

If, in step 303, it is determined that the number of competitors is inthe above exponentiated form (of a predetermined base), the processproceeds to step 305.

However, if, in step 303, it is determined that the number ofcompetitors is not in the above form, special measures must be taken.Specifically, preliminary rounds may be held in order to eliminate somecompetitors. For example, if, in a 2 competitor duel tournament (base2), where the number of competitors must be a power of 2, the number ofcompetitors is 10 (2 more than 8, a power of 2), several (or all) ridersmay be forced to participate in preliminary rounds to eliminate, forexample, 2 of the competitors and make the number of competitorscompeting in the tournament a power of 2 (e.g., 8).

Another option if, in step 303, it is determined that the number ofcompetitors is not in the above form (or if there are too manycompetitors), is to allow the more prestigious and/or better and/or moreexperienced and/or more popular competitors to advance to the laterrounds automatically. This may apply to either the rider and/or thehorse. A combination of the two approaches may also be used.

In step 305, once it is determined that the number of competitors is inthe above exponentiated form, competitors are divided into 2-competitorgroups to compete against one another (assuming a power of 2tournament). That is, competitors are divided into competitor groupsbased on the predetermined positive integer exponentiation base. Thus,for example, if the total number of competitors is 8, they would beseparated into 4 2-competitor groups. For example, if the competitorswere A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, the competitor groups could be, forexample, A-B, C-D, E-F and G-H. The groups could be assigned randomly orbased on known skill level, experience or popularity (based on the riderand/or the horse).

When a non-random assignment method is used, the differences between theriders may be maximized or minimized. That is, one method would be toassign skilled and/or experienced and/or popular competitors (or othersimilar characteristics) with other such competitors. However, anotheroption is to assign skilled and/or experienced and/or popularcompetitors with competitors who are not skilled and/or experiencedand/or popular (thus rewarding and making it more likely that bettercompetitors advance).

In the case of assigning skilled and/or experienced and/or popularcompetitors with other such competitors, one method to accomplish thiswould be to minimize the maximum difference (of skill and/or experienceand/or popularity) between each pair of competitors. Another optionwould be to minimize the average difference between each pair ofcompetitors. Yet another option would be to pair the best with thesecond best, the third best with the fourth best, and so on. That is,pairing competitors in order.

Similarly, in the case of assigning skilled and/or experienced and/orpopular competitors with competitors who are not skilled and/orexperienced and/or popular, one method to accomplish this would be tomaximize the maximum difference between competitors. Another optionwould be to maximize the average difference between competitors. Yetanother option would be to pair the best with the worst, the second bestwith the second worst and so on. Once the competitors are divided, theprocess proceeds to step 307.

In step 307, each n-competitor (e.g., 2-competitor) group competesagainst each other competitor in the n-competitor group. That is, forexample, each of groups A-B, C-D, E-F and G-H competes. The competitionsmay be consecutive or concurrent (simultaneous).

In step 309, a winner is determined in each competitor group. That is,judges will judge the performance of the competitors in each “duel” andchoose a winner Instead of a single duel, a round may have multipleduels between competitors; for example, best out of 3.

Once a winner is chosen, the loser is eliminated. Thus, in this example,4 competitors would remain. For example, A, D, E and G may remain in thecompetition.

Optionally, after each round, consolation rounds may be held todetermine the placement of the losing eliminated competitors.

In step 311, if there is not a single winner remaining (i.e., the lastround), the winners (for example, A, D, E and G) continue to the nextround.

At this point, the processing loops back to step 303. Since the nextround has better competitors, the competition may be made more difficultby, for example, using more difficult obstacles, placing the obstaclescloser together, distracting the horses and/or riders during thecompetition, etc.

Although non-first rounds would generally have the proper exponentiationof competitors, if a competitor drops out, there may not be a properexponentiation. In this case, in a non-first round (or in a first roundbefore which a competitor drops out), a previously eliminated competitorwith the highest score would take the place of the competitor whodropped out. In a first round, in the case of a competitor drop-out, acompetitor with the best non-advancing score from the qualifying round(or previous round(s), if not a first round, immediately previous orotherwise) would be chosen to take the place of the competitor whodropped out. However, if a competitor is in the middle of competing in amatch and fails to continue for any reason, this will not be considereda dropout. Instead, the competitor will simply lose the match and beeliminated.

In this example, the processing would repeat two more times as 2 of A,D, E and G are eliminated and 2 advance. For example in an A-E and D-Gmatch, A could win and G could win, while E and D could be eliminated,setting up a final round between A and G. A and G would then compete ina final round and a tournament winner, for example G, would be declared,in step 313, ending the processing and the tournament.

Thus, the tournament as described above, including regular eliminations,is much more entertaining to laypeople and in-depth knowledge of horsejumping is not required to enjoy such tournament.

An additional discussion of various features described herein andadditional other features of the present invention is set forth in theattached Appendix A, which is incorporated herein by references.

Having described the present invention including various features andvariations thereof, it is intended that the appended claims beinterpreted as including the embodiments described herein, thealternatives mentioned above, and all equivalents thereto.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of conducting a horse jumpingcompetition, the method comprising: enrolling a number of participantsin the competition; determining whether a number of the participants isa predetermined positive integer exponentiation base; dividingcompetitors into competitor groups based on the predetermined positiveinteger exponentiation base; judging each competitor group in a horsejumping contest based on predetermined criteria; determining a winner ofeach competitor group and eliminating a loser of each competitor group;declaring a tournament winner, in a final round; and advancing thewinner of each competitor group to a next round, in a non-final round.2. The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined positive integerexponentiation base is
 2. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein a roundcontains more difficult obstacles than a previous round.
 4. The methodof claim 1, wherein a round contains obstacles placed closer togetherthan a previous round.
 5. The method of claim 1, further comprisingobstacles, wherein the obstacles include at least one of Arrowhead,Bank, Bounce, Brush Fence, Bullfinch, Coffin, Combinations, Corner,Ditch, Drop Fence, Log Fence, Normandy bank, Oxer, Rolltop, Shark'sTeeth, Skinny, Stone Wall, Sunken Road, Table, Trakehner and Water. 6.The method of claim 1, wherein a consolation round is held followingeach round to determine the placement of each of the losers in relationto one another.
 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: holding aqualifying stage to eliminate at least one of the number of participantsin the competition.
 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising:allowing more prestigious or better or more experienced or more popularcompetitors to advance to later rounds automatically without competingin the qualifying stage.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein dividing thecompetitors into the competitor groups comprises: randomly assigning thecompetitors into the competitor groups.
 10. The method of claim 1,wherein dividing the competitors into the competitor groups comprises:assigning skilled or experienced or popular competitors with other suchcompetitors.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein dividing the competitorsinto the competitor groups comprises: assigning skilled or experiencedor popular competitors with competitors who are not skilled orexperienced or popular.
 12. The method of claim 10, wherein assigningthe skilled or the experienced or the popular competitors with othersuch competitors comprises minimizing a maximum difference in skill orexperience or popularity between the competitors in each competitorgroup.
 13. The method of claim 10, wherein assigning the skilled or theexperienced or the popular competitors with other such competitorscomprises minimizing an average difference in skill or experience orpopularity between the competitors in each competitor group.
 14. Themethod of claim 11, wherein assigning the skilled or the experienced orthe popular competitors with competitors who are not the skilled or theexperienced or the popular competitors comprises maximizing a maximumdifference in skill or experience or popularity between the competitorsin each competitor group.
 15. The method of claim 11, wherein assigningthe skilled or the experienced or the popular competitors withcompetitors who are not the skilled or the experienced or the popularcompetitors comprises maximizing an average difference in skill orexperience or popularity between the competitors in each competitorgroup.